Category Archives: Vector Control

WHO says, “Malaria elimination and universal health coverage go hand in hand,” at a special event during the 72st World Health Assembly. To achieve zero malaria, the goal of involving everyone from the policy maker to the community member must have a focus on achieving universal health coverage (UHC) of all malaria interventions ranging from insecticide treated bednets (ITNs) to appropriate provision of malaria diagnostics and medicines. Many of the studies to date have focused on ITNs, which include long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs), but nationwide monitoring through the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), the Malaria Indicator Surveys (MIS) and the Multi-Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).

UNICEF’s website provides a data repository that includes the most recent DHS, MIS and MICS survey data per country between 2014 and 2017. For the indicator of one ITN per to people in a household, shows Angola at only 13%, most countries for which recent data are available reached between 40-50%. Only two achieved above 60% on a point-in-time survey, Uganda at 62% and Sao Tome and Principe at 95%. The website shows information that where there were multiple surveys in a country during the period, there were variations, sometimes quite wide, over the years. Aside from the fact that the surveys may have had slightly different procedures, the problem remains of achieving and sustaining UHC for ITNs.

Another factor that affects maintaining UHC for ITNs, assuming the target can be met is the durability of nets. The physical integrity as well as the insecticide efficacy can decline over time. Intact nets may lose their insecticide through improper washing and drying, yet still prevent mosquito bites to the individual sleeping under them. Nets with holes may still maintain a minimal level of effective insecticide and may not fully prevent bites but ultimately kill the mosquito that flies through. Researchers in Senegal have been grappling with these challenges.

Program managers must themselves grapple with whether such compromised nets count toward universal coverage as well as how often to conduct net replacement campaigns. A report from community surveys in Uganda during 2017 found that, “Long-lasting insecticidal net ownership and coverage have reduced markedly in Uganda since the last net distribution campaign in 2013/14.” UHC for ITNs is always a moving target.

A frequently unaddressed issue in seeking to improve ITN coverage is whether it makes a difference in malaria disease. A study in Malawi reported that although ITNs per household increased from 1.1 in 2012 to 1.4 in 2014, the prevalence of malaria in children increased over the period from 28% to 32%. The authors surmised that factors such as insecticide resistance, irregular ITN use and inadequate coordinated use of other malaria control interventions may have influenced the results. This shows that UHC for ITNs cannot be viewed in isolation.

This brings up the issue of the role of the many different vector control measures available. Researchers in Côte d’ Ivoire examined the use of eave nets and window screening. At present eave nets are mainly deployed in research contexts but use of window and door screening and netting are a commercially available interventions that households employ on their own. One wonders then whether UHC should focus on how the household and the people therein are protected by any malaria vector intervention.

Here the discussion should focus on the question raised by colleagues in the USAID/PMI Vectorworks Project. WHO declared a goal of universal ITN coverage in 2009 using the target f one ITN/LLIN for every two household members. Vectorworks found that a decade on only one instance of a country briefly achieving 80% of this UHC net target, whereas no others reached above 60%. In fact, the bigger the household, the less chance there was of meeting the two people for one ITN target. Just because people live in a household that has the requisite number of nets, does not guarantee the actual target for sleeping under a net can be achieved because of practical or cultural realities in a household. Neither the minimal indicator of having at least one net in a household, or the ideal or ‘perfect’ indicator of UHC are satisfactory for judging population protection.

The Vectorworks team suggests that, “Population ITN access indicator is a far better indicator of ‘universal coverage’ because it is based on individual people,” and can be compared to, “The proportion of the population that used an ITN the previous night, which enables detailed analysis of specific behavioral gaps nationally as well as among population subgroups.” Population access to ITNs therefore, provides a batter basis for more realistic policies and strategies.

We have seen that defining as well as achieving universal coverage of malaria interventions is a challenging prospect. For example, do we base our monitoring on households or populations? Do we have the funds and technical capacity to implement and sustain the level of coverage required to have an impact on malaria transmission and move toward elimination? Are we able to introduce new, complimentary and appropriate interventions as a country moves closer to elimination?

A useful perspective would be determination if households and individuals even benefit from any part of the malaria package, even if everyone does not have access and utilize all components. This may be why zero malaria has to start with each person living in endemic areas.

The Sahel Malaria Elimination Initiative (SaME) has been launched, but builds on a long history of cooperation in the region. Efforts by eight Sahelian countries to share lessons and strategies mirrors the Elimination Eight group on the opposite end of the continent.

The few rainy season months in the Sahel offer optimum malaria transmission, which SaME is tackling

The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership to End Malaria announced that in Dakar on 31st August 2018, the health “ministers from Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and The Gambia established a new regional platform to combine efforts on scaling up and sustaining universal coverage of anti-malarials and mobilizing financing for elimination.” The group plans a fast-track introduction of “innovative technologies to combat malaria and develop a sub-regional scorecard that will track progress towards the goal of eliminating malaria by 2030.” This will build on the existing country scorecard that has been developed and implemented by AMLA2030 for all countries in the region and tracks roll out of key malaria and health interventions. The Sahel Malaria Elimination Initiative will be hosted by the West African Health Organization, a specialised agency of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

RBM explains that while the eight countries will work together, they do not have a homogenous epidemiological picture or experience with malaria programming. The Sahel experiences 20 million annual malaria cases, according to RBM, and “the Sahel region has seen both achievements and setbacks in the fight against the disease in recent years.” These eight have a highly variable malaria experience. Burkina Faso and Niger continue to be among the countries with high malaria burdens. Cabo Verde is on target for malaria free status by 2020. The Gambia, Mauritania and Senegal are reorienting their national malaria program towards malaria elimination. A benefit of this epidemiological and programmatic diversity is that countries can learn important lessons from each other.

The SaME Initiative will use the following main approaches to accelerate the combined efforts towards the attainment of malaria elimination in the sub-region:3

Regional coordination

Advocacy to keep malaria elimination high on the development and political agenda

Sustainable financing mechanisms

Cross-border collaboration and ensuring accountability

Fast-track the introduction of innovative and progressive technologies

Re-enforcing the Regional regulatory mechanism for quality of malaria commodities and introduction of new tools.

In addition to a history of cooperation, Sahelian countries share a unique malaria intervention, Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC) that as the name implies, built on the reality of highly seasonal transmission in the region. SMC grew out of over five years of research in several African settings to test the effect of what was originally termed Intermittent Preventive Treatment for Infants (and later children) or IPTi.

Like IPT for pregnant women, SMC would be given monthly for at least 3-4 months, but unlike IPTp, SMC would consist of a combination two medicines, amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AQ+SP), which required a three daily doses (SP alone as used in IPTp consists on one dose). SMC could not therefore, be delivered effectively as a clinic-based intervention, but “should be integrated into existing programmes, such as Community Case Management and other Community Health Workers schemes.” Access to SMC by pre-school aged children as delivered by CHWs was found to be more equitable than sleeping under an LLIN. SMC has been recommended for school-age children, a neglected group that bears a substantial burden of malaria.

Closely linked to surveillance is modeling the spatial and temporal variability of climate parameters, which is crucial to tackling malaria in the Sahel. This requires reliable observations of malaria outbreaks over a long time period. To date efforts are mainly linked to climate variables such as rainfall and temperature as well as specific landscape characteristics. Other environmental and socio-economic factors that are not included in this mechanistic malaria model.

The Sahel Malaria Elimination initiative offers a unique collaborative opportunity for countries to improve on the quality of proven interventions like SMC and test and take to scale new strategies like school-based malaria programs. Regional coordination can produce better, timelier and longer-term surveillance and better understanding of and actions against malaria vectors. Readers will surely be anticipating the publishing of the regular progress malaria elimination scorecards as promised by SaME leadership.

Take away messages by the Press sometimes need a bit of clarification. A recent report in The Citizen (Dar es Salaam) expressed that the author was ‘startled’ to mean from the recent Malaria Indicator Suvey (MIS/DHS 2017) that there is high malaria prevalence in regions that also have high insecticide treated bednet ownership and use, implying that nets might not be effective. Actually the preliminary Key Indicators Report showed the overlap between prevalence and nets but did not actually present statistical analysis comparing the two to show whether actual sleeping under the net is associated with prevalence one way or the other.

The reporter quoted Dr William Kisinza, director and chief researcher at the Amani Research Centre of the National Institute for Medical Research as saying “This shows that mosquito bed-nets aren’t the only solution in addressing malaria in Tanzania,” and while this is true, it should not be construed as meaning nets don’t work. Any national malaria strategy uses ITNs in combination with other interventions to have a comprehensive program, including indoor residual spraying, which is also mentioned in the new article.

Dr Kisinza was also quoted as saying, “In Kigoma and Mtwara, bed-nets are used in fishing. There’s a need for behavioural change, if the problem is to be effectively addressed.” This is a real problem but anecdotal. In order to make a clearer point it would be necessary to test the connection between net ownership and use and do a follow-up study to see if in fact those owning but not sleeping under the nets are practicing alternative net usage.

Actually key findings from the preliminary MIS report include the fact that while 78% of households have one ITN, only 45% have at least one for every two people. Hence it is not surprising that only 55% of children under the age of 5 and 62% of pregnant women reported sleeping under a net. These are important service gaps that must be addressed. Certainly all countries need to monitor the effectiveness of nets and insecticide resistance.

Analysis of net use and malaria parasitaemia among the children can and should be presented to address the reporter’s questions as well as provide a clue to potential insecticide resistance.

People have sometimes question whether insecticide treated nets (ITNs) provided for free are valued by the recipients. Although this is not usually a specific question in surveys, researchers found in a review of 14 national household surveys that free nets received through a campaign were six times more likely to be given away than nets obtained through other avenues such as routine health care or purchased from shops.

Giving nets away to other potential users, not hanging nets or not sleeping under nets at least imply that the nets could potentially be used for their intended purpose. What concerns many is that nets may be used for unintended and inappropriate reasons. Often the evidence is anecdotal, but photos from Nigeria and Burkina Faso shown here document cases where nets were found to cover kiosks, make football goalposts, protect vegetable seedlings and fence in livestock.

Two years ago the New York Times reported that, “Across Africa, from the mud flats of Nigeria to the coral reefs off Mozambique, mosquito-net fishing is a growing problem, an unintended consequence of one of the biggest and most celebrated public health campaigns in recent years.”5 Not only were people not being protected from malaria, but the pesticide in these ‘fishing nets’ was causing environmental damage. The article explains that the problem of such misuse may be small, but that survey respondents are very unlikely to admit to alternative uses to interviewers.

More recently, researchers who examined net use data from Kenya and Vanuatu found that alternative LLIN use is likely to emerge in impoverished populations where these practices had economic benefits like alternative ITN uses sewing bednets together to create larger fishing nets, drying fish on nets spread along the beach, seedling crop protection, and granary protection. The authors raise the question whether such uses are in fact rational from the perspective of poor people.

An important fact is that not all ovserved ‘mis-use’ of nets is really inappropriate use. A qualitative study in the Kilifi area of coastal Kenya demonstrated local ‘recycling’ of old ineffective nets. The researchers clearly found that in rural, peri-urban and urban settings people adopted innovative and beneficial ways of re-using old, expired nets, and those that were damaged beyond repair. Fencing for livestock, seedlings and crops were the most common uses in this predominantly agricultural area. Other domestic uses were well/water container covers, window screens, and braiding into rope that could be used for making chairs, beds and clotheslines. Recreational uses such as making footballs, football goals and children’s swings were reported

What we have learned here is that we should not jump to conclusions when we observe a LLIN that is set up for another purpose than protecting people from mosquito bites. Alternative uses of newly acquired nets do occur and may seem economically rational to poor communities. At the same time we must ensure that mass campaigns pay more attention to community involvement, culturally appropriate health education and onsite follow-up, especially the involvement of community health workers. Until such time as feasible safe disposal of ‘retired’ nets can be established, it would be good to work with communities to help them repurpose those nets that no longer can protect people from malaria.

When the Nigeria Malaria Control Program changes its name to Nigeria Malaria Elimination Program (NMEP) a few years ago, people wondered whether this was getting too far ahead of the situation in one of the highest burden malaria countries in the world. The recently released Framework for Malaria Elimination by the Global Malaria Program of WHO shows that all endemic countries can fit into the elimination process.

Recent Webinar by WHO’s Global Malaria Program stressed that all countries have a role in malaria elimination

The Framework stresses that, “Every country can accelerate progress towards elimination through evidence-based strategies, regardless of the current intensity of transmission and the malaria burden they may carry.” The Three pillars of the malaria elimination framework have room for high burden countries. Pillar 1 states that, “Ensure universal access to malaria prevention, diagnosis and treatment.”

First it is important to understand that the Framework defines malaria elimination as the cessation of indigenous mosquito-borne transmission of malaria throughout a country. The Framework also observes that even within countries there are diverse transmission areas. Some are not amenable to malaria transmission, while others may be amenable but do not experience transmission.

It is important to realize that malaria transmission in most countries is characterized by diversity and complexity. Areas where transmission is occurring range from very low transmission zones where hotspots erupt to high levels of ongoing transmission. Thus even high burden countries may have variation that require development of intervention packages tailored to the specific transmission setting.

This stratification and development of appropriate intervention packages requires, “Excellent surveillance and response are the keys to achieving and maintaining malaria elimination; information systems must become increasingly ‘granular’ to allow identification, tracking, classification and response for all malaria cases (e.g. imported, introduced, indigenous).” This should lead to “subnational elimination targets as internal milestones.”

For high burden countries key components of Pillar 1 is, “Vector control strategies, such as use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs/LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), together with case management (prompt access to diagnosis and effective treatment) are critical for reducing malaria morbidity and mortality, and reducing malaria transmission.”

Recommendations like ensuring political commitment, private sector involvement and establishment of an independent advisory committee are valuable at all stages of elimination. A challenge for high burden countries will be maintaining political commitment over many years. Early involvement of the private sector will boost coverage of major interventions. An independent advisory/monitoring group will help track data and progress.

It is important to put in place good monitoring systems to ensure that program coverage is well targeted, achieved and maintained. “Systematic tracking of programme actions over time, including budget allocations and adherence to standard operating procedures.” This enables accountability and enhances political commitment.

Finally the Malaria Atlas Project has mapped most recent data, and as we can see Nigeria does have a variety of transmission settings. We know now that the decision of Nigeria’s malaria program to update its name was appropriate. Hopefully not only the NMEP but also the various state malaria programs will look at their malaria transmission strata and plan according toward elimination.

Kate Klein as part of her Master of Science in Public Health program in Social and Behavioral Interventions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health undertook a study of the potential for private sector involvement in malaria prevention in Ghana. She shares a summary of her work here. During her practicum in Ghana she was hosted by JHU’s Center for Communications Programs and its USAID supported VectorWorks Program. Her practicum she was also supported by the JHU Center for Global Health, and she presented her findings in a poster at the CGH’s Global Health Day on 30th March 2017. Her essay readers/advisers were Dr. Elli Leontsini (Department of International Health) and Kathryn Bertram (Center for Communication Programs).

Malaria is endemic in all parts of Ghana and significantly burdens families, communities, and economies. Malaria remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Ghana; it accounts for eight percent of deaths in the country (The Global Fund, Ghana). It was also responsible for about 38% of outpatient visits, 27.3% of admissions in health facilities, and 48.5% of under-five deaths in 2015 (Nonvignon et al., 2016). In Ghana, the estimated cost of malaria to businesses in 2014 alone was estimated to be US$6.58 million, and 90% of these were direct costs (Nonvignon et al., 2016). Malaria leads to reduced productivity due to increased worker absenteeism and increased health care spending, which negatively impact business returns and tax revenue to the state (Nabyonga et al., 2011).

Although long-lasting insecticidal treated nets (LLINs) are a well-documented strategy to prevent disease in developing countries, most governments, including Ghana, lack the resources needed to comprehensively control malaria. The Global Fund (GF), USAID/President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI Ghana), and the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID Ghana) are the main donors for the national malaria control strategy and have worked primarily with the public sector (World Malaria Report, 2015). As government funding remains unable to close the funding gap for malaria, there is an increasing need to revitalize the private sector in sales and distribution of this life-saving technology.

A “Journey mapping” exercise to consider the process of employers buying and distributing nets to employees, created during a PSMP advocacy workshop in December 2016

Ghana is looking to the private sector to encourage a departure from previous dependence on donor-funded free bed nets. The Private Sector Malaria Prevention (PSMP at JHU) project is being implemented in Southern Ghana to increase commercial sector distribution of LLINs. Three case studies served as a situation analysis and exemplified the potential for the PSMP: a rubber producing company, a mining company and a brewery.

All three had experience in malaria control and prevention but only one had specific experience with LLINs (which dovetailed well with its own corporate strengths in logistics management as exemplified by other bottling companies in Africa). Another supported the idea of adding LLINs to its existing indoor residual spraying and community health education efforts, but needed to consider how to develop the flexibility to engage in multiple malaria interventions.

The third had had the right climate and leadership to be able to partner with PSMP, but recently underwent a takeover by a large multinational brewing company and the resulting period of transition could potentially complicate their participation in LLIN distribution efforts from a budgetary standpoint. Generally these companies had the understanding of the potential benefits to the company of situating malaria control within their structure, and thus being early candidates for adoption of the PSMP.

While the three case study companies recognized the business case for malaria, this was not a unanimous opinion among other five companies interviewed. Their concerns ranged from a preference toward treatment interventions to concerns expressed by employees about the difficulty of achieving high levels of net usage due to an array of complaints surrounding sleeping under LLINs. Some of these others had financial constraints.

Through case studies and interviews PSMP was able to identify various challenges moving forward as well as areas where further clarity must be sought. PSMP learned that several companies are pouring their resources into strong treatment and case management programs, and one challenge will be determining how to push for preventative action, such as LLIN distribution, when treatment mechanisms are so established and bias exists.

For those companies who are making tremendous strides in malaria prevention, bringing recognition to these successes through advocacy will be necessary for encouraging future participation and convincing other similar employers of the benefits of starting their own LLIN distribution programs. Finally, PSMP needs to prioritize clarifying viewpoints on LLIN efficacy and use, with a focus on understanding why employers may hold unfavorable views and what it would take to overturn them.

In the future it will be necessary to move beyond the occupational considerations specific to mining and agro-industrial operations and consider how the work has changed the environment into a malaria habitat and the non-traditional work hours that may create more significant Anopheles mosquito exposures. PSMP should gather specific information on lifestyle, housing, and work environments during future visits with employers so that companies that have the most to gain through LLIN distribution are identified and targeted.

The United Nations introduces us to the challenges of water. “Water is the essential building block of life. But it is more than just essential to quench thirst or protect health; water is vital for creating jobs and supporting economic, social, and human development.” Unfortunately, “Today, there are over 663 million people living without a safe water supply close to home, spending countless hours queuing or trekking to distant sources, and coping with the health impacts of using contaminated water.”

Haiti: Importance of Water to prevent STH

Many of the infectious health challenges known as Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) have issues of water associated with their transmission. This may relate to scarcity of water and subsequent hygiene problems. It may relate to water quality and contamination. It may also relate to water in the lifecycle of vectors that carry some of the diseases.

Even though water is crucial to the control of many NTDs, it is not often the feature of large scale interventions. The largest current activity against five NTDs is mass drug administration (MDA) on an annual or more frequent basis to break the transmission cycle. Known as diseases that respond to preventive chemotherapy (PCT) through MDA, these include lymphatic filariasis (LF), trachoma, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis and soil transmitted helminths (STH) has been undertaken for over 10 years.

We have recently passed the Fifth Anniversary of the London Declaration on NTDs, which calls for the control of ten of the many these scourges The Declaration calls for “the elimination “by 2020 lymphatic filariasis, leprosy, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis) and blinding trachoma.” Another water-borne NTD, guinea worm, should be eradicated soon. Two of the elimination targets are part of MDA efforts, LF and trachoma.

Cameroon: mapping the community to detect NTD transmission sites

Ministries of Health and their donor and NGO partners who deliver MDA against the 5 diseases in endemic countries express interest in coordinating with water and sanitation for health (WASH) programs. People do recognize the value of collaboration between NTD MDA efforts and WASH projects, but these may be located in other ministries and organizations.

The long term implementation of WASH efforts is seen as a way to prevent resurgence of trachoma, for example, and strongly compliment efforts to control STH and schistosomiasis. Hopefully before the 10th Anniversary of the London Declaration the vision of “ensuring access to clean water and basic sanitation,” can also be achieved.

Finally as a reminder our present tools for the control of Zika and Dengue fevers relies almost entirely on safe and protected household and community sources of water to prevent breeding of disease carrying Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. If we neglect water, we will continue to experience neglected tropical diseases. Hopefully the topic of water and NTDs will feature prominently at next months global partners meeting hosted by the World Health Organization.

The just concluded 2015 Global Health Conference in Botswana, hosted by Boitekanelo College at Gaborone International Convention Centre on 11-12 June provided us a good opportunity to examine how Botswana is moving toward malaria elimination. Botswana is one of the four front line malaria elimination countries in the Southern African Development Community and offers lessons for other countries in the region. Combined with the 4 neighboring countries to the north, they are known collectively as the “Elimination Eight”.

The malaria elimination countries are characterised by low leves of transmission in focal areas of the country, often in seasonal or epidemic form. The pathway to malaria elimination requires that a country or defined areas in a country reach a slide positivity rates during peak malaria season of < 5%.

Chihanga Simon et al. provide us a good outline of 60+ years of Botswana’s movements along the pathway beginning with indoor residual spraying (IRS) in the 1950s. Since then the country has expanded vector control to strengthened case management and surveillance. Particular recent milestones include –

2009: Malaria elimination policy required all cases to be tested before treatment malaria elimination target set for 2015

Develop a robust information system for tracking of progress and decision making

Build capacity at all levels for malaria elimination

Botswana like other malaria endemic countries works with the Roll Back Malaria Partnership to compile an annual road map that identifies progress made and areas for improvement. The 2015 Road Map shows that –

116,229 LLINs distributed during campaigns in order to maintain universal coverage in the 6 high risk districts

200,721 IRS Operational Target structures sprayed

2,183,238 RDTs distributed and 9,876 microscopes distributed

While M&E, Behavior Change, and Program Management Capacity activities are underway

Finally the African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA) provides quarterly scorecards on each member. Botswana is making a major financial commitment to its malaria elimination commodity and policy needs. There is still need to sustain high levels of IRS coverage in designated areas.

Monitoring and evaluation is crucial to malaria elimination. Botswana has a detailed M&E plan that includes a geo-referenced surveillance system, GIS and malaria database training for 60 health care workers, traininf for at least 80% of health workers on Case Based Surveillance in 29 districts, and regular data analysis and feedback.

M&E activities also involve supervision visits for mapping of cases, foci and interventions, bi-annual malaria case management audits, enhanced diagnostics through PCR and LAMP as well as Knowledge, Attitudes, Behaviour, and Practice surveys.

Malaria elimination activities are not simple. Just because cases drop, our job is easier. Botswana, like its neighbors in the ‘Elimination Eight’ is putting in place the interventions and resources needed to see malaria really come to an end in the country. Keep up the good work!

This year World Health Day (April 7th) focuses on insect vectors of disease with the theme “small bite, big threat.” WHO explains that, “Mosquitoes, flies, ticks and bugs may be a threat to your health – and that of your family – at home and when travelling. This is the message of this year’s World Health Day.” Furthermore “Every year, more than 1 billion people are infected and more than 1 million die from vector-borne diseases.”

Wrong mosquito used in article about malaria

While we are happy about this world-wide attention to disease vectors in general, at Malaria Matters we are particularly concerned with the various anopheles mosquitoes that carry malaria parasites. Thus it is time to vent a little frustration with the media that visually sends the wrong message about mosquitoes and malaria.

First we can see a typical news story on our first screen shot that presents an article about malaria with a photo of Aedes aeqypti mosquitoes that carry dengue and yellow fever. While one can agree that this black and white striped mosquito is a bit scarier and attention grabbing than a blander colored anopheles, it still gives wrong information and wrong ideas. The two mosquitoes have very different biting and breeding and patterns that lead to very different control interventions.

Granted, the general public might not distinguish among the various nuisances called mosquitoes, but at least professionals aiming to communicate information about malaria should research and present the correct graphics. Fortunately we can rely on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help us distinguish our mosquitoes.

Another concern with the media is a stress on malaria control interventions that may not be the major focus of key international programs that are part of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership. RBM and partners set sights on three main malaria interventions at the onset – insecticide treated bed nets (ITNs), prompt and appropriate malaria case management, and intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) for pregnant women. WHO offers guidance on each of these interventions that donors like the Global Fund and the US President’s Malaria Initiative follow in making their funding decisions.

Malaria control has expanded cautiously from the three core interventions to include indoor residual spraying (IRS) in epidemiologically appropriate settings. Larviciding under restricted conditions is now included to round out an integrated vector control strategy. Also the concept of IPT was tested with infants and children and has now become the strategy of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) in countries of the Sahel. These additions have come after rigorous scientific testing and with an eye to the economic costs and benefits of supporting scale up.

Outdoor fogging is not a RBM malaria control strategy

Ironically, some media outlets and city councils get fixated on outdoor spraying or fogging (as seen in photo). This is NOT a RBM strategic intervention for a number of reasons. INDOOR residual spraying is designed specifically with the behavior of anopheles in mind because they do rest on the walls inside houses after biting and residual means the insecticidal effect lasts for some months. OUTDOOR fogging is hit and miss and dissipates.

So in conclusion we hope people will use today’s World Health Day focus on vector borne diseases to give a nod to the Pan-African Mosquito Control Association and to get to know their mosquitoes and mosquito interventions better.

The President’s Malaria Initiative’s Africa Indoor Residual project (PMI/AIRS), IRS 2 Task Order 4, executed the year 2 spray operation in Nasarawa Eggon and Doma Local Government Areas (LGA) of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. The objectives of the program being the reduction of malaria – associated morbidity and mortality, a total of 62,592 structures were sprayed. To measure the impact of the IRS program on the malaria vectors the proportion of parous mosquitoes in the vector population was determined before and after Indoor Residual Spraying.

One thousand, six hundred and twenty one (1,621) female Anopheles gambiae s.l. specimens drawn from a pool of 3,356 Female Anopheline mosquitoes captured by Human Landing Catches from three LGAs of Nassarawa Eggon and Doma (intervention areas) and Lafia (Control) of Nasarawa State Nigeria were dissected using WHO-recommended techniques for parity. The degree of coiling of ovarian tracheoles was observed pre-IRS intervention in March 2013 and monthly post IRS intervention up to September 2013. Proportion of parous females was compared pre-and between intervention and control villages. Similarly, pre-and post-spray proportion of parous comparison was made within both intervention and control villages.

Overall, a total of 1,621 ovaries of An. gambiae s.l. were dissected before and after IRS intervention. Of the ovaries dissected at baseline, 71.43% were parous in Nassarawa Eggon, 76.70% in Doma and 77% in the control area. After IRS in May 2013, it was found that the parity had declined dramatically to 17.69% in Nassarawa Eggon, 27.98% in Doma (p <0.05) while in the control area (Lafia) Parity remained as high as 68%. As insecticide residual efficacy continued to decline, slight increase in parity rate was observed in the intervention areas (38% and 31% in N/Eggon and Doma respectively for September) while it remained high (71%) in the control area for the same month.

This study has shown a reduction in the longevity of Anopheles mosquitoes post spraying as compared to pre-spraying in the intervention villages. The longevity of the vector was also significantly declined post spraying in the intervention villages as compared to unsprayed villages. The observed reduction of the expectation of life of the vector associated with IRS is promising. But further study is needed to fully understand how this will be translated to reduction of malaria transmission in the area.

We wish to thank all technicians who participated in the entomological surveillance activities and dissection of mosquitoes. This work was funded by the President’s Malaria Initiative. www.africairs.net and info@africairs.net

https://t.co/yKKsmAEpSv @MinSanteRDC #Ebola 23 May 2019: Since beginning of epidemic, cumulative number of cases is 1,888, of which 1,800 confirmed 88 are probable. In total, there were 1,254 deaths (1,166 confirmed and 88 probable) and 492 people cured. 11 new confirmed cases